Communicated on 19 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos . 15432/10 and 47056/11 Inna Grigoryevna MOCHALOVA against Russia and Marina Stanislavovna PANYUSHKINA and Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich PANYUSHKIN against Russia lodged on 25 February 2010 and 20 May 2011 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. Application no. 15432/10 lodged on 25 February 2010 by Inna Grigoryevna Mochalova who was born on 28 May 1935 and lives in St Petersburg.

In 1994 the applicant left Grozny in the Chechen Republic, and settled in St Petersburg.

In 1995 the migration authorities granted her forced migrant status, valid for five years. In 1997 they provided her with a room in a three-room flat in St Petersburg.

In 1999 the applicant received compensation for housing and property left in Grozny.

In February 2004 the authorities concluded a one-year social tenancy agreement with the applicant in respect of the room she had been given, which could be prolonged at the applicant ’ s request.

In 2005 the migration authorities deprived the applicant of her status as a forced migrant on the grounds that she had not applied in due time for it to be prolonged. The applicant was not informed of that decision.

In 2007 the authorities brought eviction proceedings against her.

The applicant brought a counterclaim, seeking the reinstatement of her status as a forced migrant. She claimed that she had not applied for the prolongation of her status because of serious health problems. She had been classified as having a first-degree disability and had not managed to gather all the necessary documents in time. The compensation paid for her housing in Chechnya had been insufficient for buying a flat in St Petersburg. She did not have any other housing or family support. Her eldest son had been killed in Chechnya while another son did not have any housing of his own.

On 26 August 2009 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered the applicant ’ s eviction from her room, without the provision of any alternative housing. In particular, the District Court held that the applicant had not provided any valid reasons for her failure to request the prolongation of her status as a forced migrant. Having regard to the fact that the applicant was no longer a forced migrant, she had lost her right to occupy her room.

On 19 November 2009 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the eviction order.

2. Application no. 47056/11 lodged on 20 May 2011 by Marina Stanislavovna Panyushkina who was born on 19 February 1971 and lives in St Petersburg, and by Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Panyushkin who was born on 13 January 1997 and lives in St Petersburg. The applicants are represented by Olga Pavlovna Tseytlina , a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.

The applicants are a single mother and her son.

In 1995 the first applicant and her mother left Uzbekistan for Russia and settled in St Petersburg. They were granted the status of forced migrants.

In 1997 the second applicant was born.

In 1998 the migration authorities provided the applicants with a room in a three-room flat.

In 2001 the migration authorities deprived the first applicant of her status as a forced migrant on the grounds that she had not applied in due time for it to be prolonged. The first applicant was not informed of that decision.

Following that decision the migration authorities brought court proceedings against the applicants, seeking their eviction from the room.

The local authorities objected to the eviction because the flat was the only dwelling for the second applicant.

The applicants submitted that their eviction would be in breach of Article8 of the Convention since it was not necessary in a democratic society. The room in question was their only dwelling. The first applicant was a single mother whose income was insufficient for buying a flat in St Petersburg.

On 15 May 2012 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered the applicants ’ eviction from their room, without the provision of any alternative accommodation.

In their appeal against the eviction order the applicants submitted that their eviction was disproportionate since the court had not taken their arguments into account.

On 4 October 2012 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the eviction order.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of their right to respect for their home.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, for instance McCann v. the United Kingdom , no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Ćosić v. Croatia , no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulić v. Croatia , no. 3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009) ?